Wrath of Dagon

Age of Decadence should have the combat demo out by Christmas, and Combat Mission: Normandy should be out by spring. Yeay!

It's not about the environment, it's about totalitarian control, stopping economic progress, and redistributing wealth instead. Now get back in your place! http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&sto...define-humanity

It's not strawman. You mentioned that it's easy to imagine how things would have gone had the results of past events gone differently. I contend that it's impossible to imagine how things would have gone with any accuracy. Given ideas of some things being objectively good or evil, coupled with your notion (and support for a diety) because "things have gone well," my commentary directly relates to the topic since my point is that the only reason why things "have gone well" is because it is in line with your current socialization. However, since you did just state that there certainly is some ways you'd still be the same, would you care to elaborate on which ways you'd still be the same? Well, having been born in a totalitarian dictatorship, I'd say I'd pretty much be the same in every aspect. Conservatism extends beyond fiscal policy, and fascists are typically regarded as right wing for their socially conservative beliefs. Yes, nice chart there, socially conservative beliefs are fascist, and conservatism is authoritarian, someone needs to hurry up and tell Thomas Jefferson.

May be they have a trade association that makes sure everything is compatible, that's how things work now a lot of the time. More loot is good, ME didn't have enough interesting loot.

Yes, and they must live in an evil culture if what you say is true.

Hmm, default is almost the same as mine. I must be doing something right.

Judging from you lack of knowledge of right and wrong I'd say you would be. Edit: It's a slur on the conservatives to say the nazis were right wing, how can Socialists be right wing, it makes no sense at all.

@alanschu: It's a strawman argument because you're arguing against something I didn't say, however I did misread your statement and you're saying "in any way" which I read as "in every way". In that case you're still wrong because certainly is some ways I'd still be the same, or at least there's no proof that I'd be completely different, it not like there weren't people with morals even under the worst circumstances in history.

Look up "strawman argument".

Wrex and Garrus, that's it.

The advantage that the PS3 has is that there are some developers who actually write a brand new engine for it, instead of using the same crappy UE3 that everyone on the 360 uses.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if people are evil or mentally ill, like whoever made that movie.

So what you're saying if the nazis had won, I'd be a nazi. Well how come I wasn't a communist when the communists won? There's such a thing as objective good and evil. What does that even mean? The nazis could've won, the Cuban missile crisis could've easily turned into a nuclear exchange, etc. What happened happened because it happened, we don't have anything to compare it to. Saying that it was meant to happen that way is meaningless. We can compare it to what could've happened, it's not like it's hard to picture.

What does that even mean? I'm not sure. If we are making the argument that God directs our history, then I'm not sure how the collapse of the Roman Empire would fit into that flowing statement. Sure, the church survived, but it took hundreds of years to re-establish itself. The Roman empire was extremely evil.

Some of one, none of two, majority of three. IMO. You really think you're that much in control of your own life, in spite of the myriad of external factors you have no control over? In that case being an atheist is a rational position. What does that even mean? The nazis could've won, the Cuban missile crisis could've easily turned into a nuclear exchange, etc.

I'd like to put that idea to a practical test.

Not so, in an atheist world, the scientific rules and laws still apply - I doubt most Christians would use God to explain gravity. Dismissing God simply means that there is no overall deity, but that doesn't mean that the system is random or chaotic. Interestingly though - and for arguments sake, how would the presence of a deity, be an assurance that the world isn't completely random? (especially seeing as a deity is the only thing that radically and inexplicitly change reality) The laws apply, but things should happen randomly within those laws. The mere presence of a deity wouldn't be an assurance of anything, it could be a god of chaos, but we see history is generally flowing in the right way, how to explain that? Does everyone's personal life seem to happen at random, or does there seem to be some kind of scheme at work, or are you yourself responsible for everything that happens to you?

Ah yes, the one party state idea. THAT'LL END WELL. It's not a one party state. Do conservative countries (heh, there aren't any) never have parties because they all agree on everything? What about liberal countries? Any time you have elections, you'll get at least 2 parties.

No it won't, it'll crash and burn, bad analogy.

Is that the Red Wizard academy?

Atheism implies world is completely random, think about that.

We don't need to break up, we just need the red superstate/ blue superstate idea I've proposed before.

What is it that makes atheists so insecure about themselves that they have the constant need to attack the beliefs of others to feel superior?

I'm OK with the bailout, I'm not OK with political corruption. So far we haven't found a solution to it though. And wow, you don't want to go through what the Soviets went through with the collapse. You white bread Western ninnies would never be able to handle it.

I didn't call them fundamentalists, I called them Islamo-nazis. They consider themselves fundamentalists, and that's what the media frequently likes to call them, to avoid "terrorist" or an equally accurate term.